|
Banned
|
Herk, 18 months ago, in this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...24#post2073324
...I proposed a plan that is the mirror opposite of what you've proposed in your post. No one took me seriously. I was serious. I based my proposal on the practicalities as I assessed them, and on the risks of attempting to execute my proposal, vs. the consequences of not attempting it. I doubt that your proposal to do the opposite will be supported either.
From post #28 in the thread linked above:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The "terms" would be acceptance, on short notice, of a demand by the U.S. that all long range missles and other long range offensive nuclear weapons delivery systems, under the contol of any country designated by the U.S., be deactivated, and then, under U.S. supervision, dismantled, along with existing facilities capable of maintaining or manufacturing such systems, as well as all design and R&D facilities.
Acceptance of and cooperation with a permanent presence of U.S. weapons inspectors would also be required.
Any country that refuses to accept and comply with these terms must be convinced by the U.S. that the consequence of delaying acceptance or outright resistance, would be the risk of an imminent, massive nuclear strike on military targets and on industrial infrastructure.
The best time to display a resolve and firmness that is not diluted by signs of desperation....a resolve that compliments the description of U.S. nuclear first strike capablities, that I previously posted, to project the most intimidating, and thus, persuasive impression on China, and more importantly, on Russia,
<h2>is now.</h2>
The key to avoiding massive loss of life and devastation, i.e., an "all out" nuclear war, is to convince Russia that the inevitable result of resisting the U.S. ultimatum by launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the U.S. as a response to the U.S. ultimatum, would be the near certainty that the U.S. would only be partially destroyed, while U.S. retaliatory strikes would result in Russia ceasing to exist.
I accept that the U.S. government will come to a decision very similar to what I've described, but that it will not come until the odds of avoiding a nuclear exchange with Russia are much higher than they would be....say....if the ultimatum was delivered tomorrow.....
|
I am convinced that the popular alternative, the "tweener"...a slow grind that bankrupts the US treasury and destroys the purchasing power of the US paper currency and the economy....we cannot expend $5 million to kill each "dead ender" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and where ever, and still spend 5 times as much on our military as our closest competitor does, with an aging population and a huge and ongoing accumulation of additional debt.....will trigger inevitable, more desperate aggressive military actions, when it is probably already too late to achieve the domination I think is entirely possible, if attempted ASAP.
Rationale for post #28, is described in this (#26) post:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=26
macmanmike6100, the combined U.S. federal budget and external trade debt continues to accumulate annually at a rate of at least $1.4 trillion. At minimumn, the combined existing federal treasury and external debt is $14 trillion. At 6 percent annual interest, it costs $840 billion to service the interest on the $14 trillion, and next year the combined debt will have accumulated to at least $15.4 trillion.
The total <a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html">U.S. GDP in 2005 was $12.5 trillion, and federal spending was at least $2.466 trillion</a>
Hoping for world peace, considering what I've outlined as far as U.S. military capability and the runaway U.S. debt accumulation, aggravated by growing competition for petroleum and other raw materials, with a Chinese currency that rises in value, as the U.S. dollar falls.....causing even higher petroleum, import costs, with no sign of any lessening of the amount that the U.S. imports, or of new signifigant discovery of supply, and the increasing "off budget" expense of financing delayed occupation aggravated by deteriorating security climates in both Iraq and Afghanistan, seems a bit unrealistic.
I'm betting that most Americans will be unwilling to accept the coming costs of peace, which probably include a doubling of the dollar price of oil, and everything that we currently buy at Wal-Mart, in a span as short as in the next 36 months. Expenditures on the military intelligence complex will fall as our already bankrupt U.S. government can no longer borrow money at rates under....say.....12 percent....
Quote:
http://counterpunch.org/roberts02152005.html
.......When the dollar loses its reserve currency role, America will not be able to pay for the imports on which it has become dependent. Shopping in Wal-Mart will be like shopping at Neiman Marcus...........
|
The question then will be simple....do we use the military power, before it rusts at the dock, or on the launch pad, in an attempt to force Russian and China to disarm, or be "taken out", or do we quietly fade into an Argentina style decline?
I know what we will decide....so....why wait? Every new day where we import 14 million more bbls or petroleum equivalents, borrowing an additional $980 million each day to do it....brings us closer to the day that no one will extend us the credit to do it. On that day, the U.S. will be weaker economically and less militarily powerful than it is today, and Russia and China will both be stronger and richer than they are now. There is no plan that I know of, to lessen the speed of the U.S. spiral into paper currency spending power implosion, and no plan to stop it and reverse it.
All I see is an avoidance to even pay any attention to the trend....can anybody offer an alternative, or rosier set of predictions? If not, shouldn't discussion focus on when the best time will be to threaten China and Russia into capitulating, militarily, and what to do to them if they refuse?
|
Last edited by host; 12-29-2007 at 07:16 AM..
|